The Iran War is Not Taking Place (La Guerre d’Iran n’a pas lieu)

Alan N. Shapiro

Thanks to Prof. Marc Silver for our exchanges.

“The first casualty of war is the truth.” It’s important to understand that “casualty” can mean either injury or death. The final outcome remains uncertain. This famous quote is attributed to several figures, including the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus, Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, eighteenth-century man of letters Samuel Johnson, Ethel Snowden in a 1915 article titled “Women and War,” U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1918, Arthur Ponsonby in his 1928 book Falsehood in Wartime, and the English writer Rudyard Kipling. Today, amid the ongoing “clash of the titans” between Iran and Israel (Benjamin Netanyahu)—or Iran and the U.S. (Donald Trump)—and the circumstances that have led to and surround this, we need to invert or stand on its head the traditional relationship between war and the “disappearance” of truth (let’s radicalize the analysis further). We must fundamentally rethink the harmful or deadly connection between these two terms. The crisis of truth—at the highest levels of political power and within our deeply corrupt mainstream and online digital media ecosystems—is the core issue. The many “dogs” of so-called “war” are its consequence. The new formulation: The first casualty of post-truth is the post-war or hyper-war calamity. It is the fractal, viral, pandemic-like catastrophe spreading in all directions like a cancerous metastasis once known as war.

“Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”) was the inscription below the image of a smoking pipe in René Magritte’s 1929 landmark artwork “La Trahison des images” (“The Treachery of Images”). The image of a thing is not the thing itself. When Jean Baudrillard wrote The Gulf War Did Not Take Place in 1991, during the first Iraq War (led by President George H. W. Bush), the French philosopher observed that the conflict was being virtualized into media abstraction and the “war” of images by and on television. The death and physical destruction of Iraqis and the country of Iraq’s infrastructure were tragic side effects of the primary visual media that mesmerized American and Western cultural citizens. TV viewers became hostages to the screen and the emerging “information system” (just prior to the late 1991 advent of the World Wide Web and the mid-1990s explosion of the Internet). Media became a constant “news source” 24/7, with endless military experts in full uniform regalia analyzing every strategic detail on CNN. Spectators voyeuristically watched the Virtual Reality of flesh-and-blood human sacrifice on the other side of the planet.

Today, image-based simulation has been exponentially upgraded and superseded by the next stage of virtuality powered by informatics, software code, and AI. Truth, facts, and “reality” have been shattered and “obliterated” (a favorite word of Trump) into countless tiny fragments, blasted to smithereens by the algorithm-driven “social media” platforms we all access around the clock.

There are four main arguments supporting the claim that “the Iran War is not taking place.” They all connect with each other.

First, something else is happening that precedes and determines the so-called “war.” It is the entire online digital media landscape we live in. We are fully immersed in the post-democratic simulation of the formerly public sphere (drawing on the ideas of social theorists Jean Baudrillard and Jürgen Habermas).

Second, on a separate track, influential figures with significant political power, like Trump and Vladimir Putin, are engaged in a parallel distortion of our connection to truth, facts, and “reality.” Trump and social media platforms are perfect mirror images of each other, two birds of a feather.

The widespread disaster triggered by Israel’s brutal genocide in Gaza and Trump’s massive mistake attacking Iran are irreversible. There is no “off ramp,” no clear end in sight to this “war,” mainly because it’s not really a war. The illusion of an “off-ramp” that Trump might use to save face could appear very soon. The trick will seem believable if people naively think this is a “war.” The chaos and random effects spreading everywhere in this “non-war” reflect the state of our hyperreal, highly chaotic “information system” rooted in post-truth and entropy.

Third, from a more traditional political science perspective, it is not truly a war if the two seemingly opposing sides are “objectively” colluding and sharing the same goals. Then, what appears to be a war between two adversaries is actually a “deterrence” of some “third” force or entity. Who or what is that “third”?

Fourth, complex, nearly unfathomable paradoxes in global geopolitics are emerging, making it impossible to view this as a traditional war.

Two initial research questions in this area of the fourth argument include: First, how can one maintain solidarity with Ukraine’s political leaders based on the idea that Russia’s invasion violates international law, when those same leaders support the American-Israeli invasion of Iran, which also violates international law regarding the sovereignty of another nation? Does the Realpolitik of survival by Ukrainian leaders (“Iran gave them drones to attack us, so they are definitely our enemies”) neutralize what one might superficially call hypocrisy?

Second, how can the 20th-century distinction between war crimes and the “acceptable” conduct of a “fairly fought” war still serve as a useful international law framework when bombing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure—actions once regarded as war crimes—are now common practices (or seemingly the very point) of hyper-modern warfare?

International law is turned into a twisted maze or Möbius strip, creating an absurdly illogical web of supposed alliances and enemies. Those who are morally correct in one conflict are considered wrong in another. We were told to support Ukraine because Putin’s invasion violated the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and the principle against interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. Most European leaders were outraged when Donald Trump mentioned taking over Greenland. Canada was in an uproar when he expressed his wish to make it the 51st state. Volodymyr Zelensky’s involvement in the illegal war in Iran is quite ironic. Trump’s invasion of Iran mirrors Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Or consider the pretzel logic of the Russia-Iran alliance: Russia is the attacker. Iran is attacked. Anything goes. The realpolitik of “which side you are on” overrides any principles.

Back to the first argument: On social media platforms driven by algorithmic surveillance, people craft their own stories. The “attention economy” disconnects conversation from reality. Mental states and fixed attitudes dominate reason. The politically motivated user lives in an echo chamber, seeing only narratives that confirm their beliefs, trapped in a homogenized ideological filter bubble—a closed, dangerously self-referential space. It’s no longer about facts; it’s about emotions. I believe what reinforces my identity. It doesn’t matter if it’s true. Algorithms push emotionally charged content to boost views. Hate speech, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and video “deep fakes” are common. Users often don’t know the criteria used to decide what content they see. Why do they see what they see? Young people lack the media literacy to critically evaluate information or distinguish facts from falsifications. We are living in the era of post-truth and hyper-war.

Before the well-known “fog of war,” there is the fog of hyperreality. The ongoing crisis in democracy is closely connected to major changes in the media landscape. The rise of online platforms, used by millions on smartphones and filled with videos from celebrities both big and small, does not mean that serious or thoughtful decisions about “reality” are becoming more democratic. We are disconnected from “the real” because of the very medium through which we receive information, living instead in a fog of self-referential semiotic signs (images and discourses replace the “references” they are supposed to represent). The dizzying whirlwind of hyperreality has completely taken over society, pulling us into a world of fantasy and illusion.

On to the second argument: Trump’s discourses elevate the loss of truth to an unprecedented level. Trump believed he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize and was admired by supporters as the “anti-war President.” Then came his baseless about-face, grounded in nothing. His confused attack on Iran was wrapped in fantasies of weak justifications, sadistic warmongering, and quick regime change that only existed in his mind. Sheltered by his volatile imagination, Trump remains in denial of reality. More broadly, across the media, as “facts” and the discoveries of secret gems by conspiracy theorists become more common in our ever-expanding carnival of information overload, concrete history fades further into its simulacrum. Live news feeds and commentary flood everywhere, often creating a cycle of self-cancellation.

In one of his 2016 televised Presidential debates against Hillary Clinton, Trump claimed he had opposed the second Iraq War of 2003 (the one led by President George W. Bush). With the Iran War, we now have the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the metaphorical Holy Ghost. The liberal media became obsessed with the details of their detective-like investigation of what Trump had actually said back then. “What evidence do you have, Mr. Trump?” “I called up my friend Sean Hannity and told him I was against it. You can ask him!” The liberal media never bothered to ask Trump: “WHY were you against the Iraq War?” Contrary to what Trump supporters believed, it was clear to me that Trump, if he became President, was going to be one of the great warmongers. Yes, it was the right-wing version in American political history of being antiwar: “We should have taken the oil!” “They made us fight the war with one hand tied behind our backs!” “Bomb them back to the Stone Age!”

Let us recall what Trump said after the event in American and New York City history called 9/11. First, he said that if he were President, he would respond strongly. Second, he mentioned that his own building has now been restored to its proper place as the tallest skyscraper in downtown Manhattan. The collapse of the towers showed the power of the “symbolic” over the real in our world, an event filled with symbolism. It was a clash between the American capitalist system, expanded into a globalist system, and the rest of the world. A real act of terrorism was carried out by 19 suicidal terrorists willing to die for their cause. The event was also the climactic act of the Twin Towers themselves. Going beyond the terrorists’ horrific act to their own suicide, their gesture of self-destruction.

His followers ignoring his about-face on war shows it’s a personality cult. MAGA lacks convictions and ideas.

Now, Trump is intoxicated with power. “We have to regime-change them because they’ve been anti-American for 45 years!” The outcome of the Iranian retaliations was known to all experts, but not known to him.

As the clear line between “true” and “false” and the certainty about facts fade, Trump stands out as the ultimate master of an Orwellian system of “beyond truth and lies,” telling supporters: “What you see and what you are reading is not what’s happening.” War is Peace and Peace is War. Trump’s words intervene between his followers’ senses and reality. Something becomes “true” because Trump says so. For Trump and his sidekick Pete Hegseth, war is a movie, a video game, a monster smash-mouth NFL football hit, a WWF wrestling match.

I admire Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary in the Clinton Administration who now writes brilliant political columns for The Guardian. But I don’t agree with Reich’s statement that it is Trump’s war. Trump is at the height of power, and what is displayed is the ignorance—(I won’t use one of Trump’s favorite words, “stupidity”)—inherent in power itself in America’s post-democracy era. Trump is the person who temporarily embodies this power. Power equals ignorance. The more ignorant he is, the less ignorant his supporters feel they are. This is about power itself.

Joe Biden played a significant role in the disaster we are now facing. Voters rejected Trump in November 2020. Trump claimed he had won the election, and in a symbolic sense, he was somewhat correct. Biden received 7 million more votes than Trump and 74 more electoral college votes. However, Trump achieved a greater victory by inciting the January 6, 2021, Insurrection and avoiding consequences (unlike Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, where accountability was more effective). The narrative of Trump’s comeback was carefully crafted. Biden then made two major critical errors. He delayed too long in vigorously prosecuting Trump for the Insurrection and disqualifying Trump from holding office again. He also recklessly and narcissistically broke his promise to be a one-term president, blocking a real primary process where a strong Democratic candidate might have emerged to defeat Trump in 2024.

Moving to the third argument: The Cold War (1950s to 1980s) was, in many ways, already a simulation—a facade designed to prevent populations on both sides from realizing what was really happening. The public, which consumed media, had to be convinced of the war’s supposed “reality.” Death and destruction were mostly confined to proxy conflicts like the undeclared war in Vietnam, which we watched on TV, or the threat of a possible nuclear holocaust.

The two sides of a “war” aren’t truly opponents when they share interests, especially when they cooperate to achieve a common goal. The Iranian government doesn’t genuinely care about the Iranian people; their goal is to maintain power and control. Trump and Netanyahu are now bombing Iranian civil society “back to the Stone Age.”

The main issue stems from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which both Israel and Hamas have consistently refused to resolve. Instead of seeking mutual recognition through compromise, they seek to eliminate each other’s existence. Previous American presidents attempted to mediate a two-state solution, but Trump and his sidekick Jared Kushner sided completely with Israel. Interestingly, there’s a similarity between the Iranian regime, its proxies, and Israel—enemies often think alike. Israelis believe they must eliminate enemies who want to destroy them, and vice versa. “They” don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. “They” don’t recognize Islamic Iran’s right to exist.

Expressed in “Nietzschean” (On the Genealogy of Morals) philosophical terms: Since they cannot think symbolically (which would be the “real real”), they all think only in “reality-effects,” which are filled with lasting psychological projection and abstraction. Each term in a “metaphysical binary opposition” (Jacques Derrida, Donna Haraway) excludes its counterpart and is defined only negatively by its “not being” the other term. One side of the opposition is always just the illusion of the other side. The “other” is pushed out by the “in-group” and becomes part of the in-group’s imaginary. The in-group’s self-identity is simply an effect of its own effects. The hyperreal image of “us” versus “them” is nothing but a system of reality-effects, the imaginary of the imaginary.

In the “morality” of ressentiment that Nietzsche critiqued, you define who you are only negatively by your not being “the other.” It’s hollow.

In reality, it’s the Iranian people who suffer the most — not only from deaths and economic devastation caused by bombing infrastructure like factories, but also from rhetoric, like Trump claiming that one of his reasons for going to war was to “liberate the Iranian people.” “Help is on its way!”

The “third” force or entity against which the two sides are “objectively” colluding is ordinary people everywhere—those who lack power. We might call them “the masses” or “the silent majority.”

And as a Jew myself, I say this: By redefining the term “anti-Semitism” as any criticism of the Israeli government, the phrase “anti-Semitism” — which used to refer to acts of anti-Semitism — has been tragically rendered meaningless. We have been robbed of the word, losing its original meaning.

We are in an era where postmodernism has evolved into hyper-modernism, dominated by simulacra and hyperreality, now embedded and carried out at the micro level of detail of code and AI. The signs of the real have replaced true reality itself. Images have replaced authentic originals. The language of demagogic propaganda has replaced concern for facts, truth, or genuine communication. Yet, when simulacra become so widespread and dominant, we go beyond simple replacement. The simulacra start to interact with each other. Lies talk with lies. Rhetoric blends with other rhetoric. This is the stage we’ve reached with both Trump and the algorithm-driven social media platforms—they are like twins. Signs merge, creating a growing sense of indifference.

Saying that “the Iran War is not taking place” doesn’t mean denying that death and destruction are happening. Instead, it offers insight and focuses the analysis on the real situation. What is Trump’s America really? A reality TV star full of bluster. America now embodies TRUMPISM. A new showdown between America and the rest of the world is in progress. It’s no longer in the form of TV, consumerism, and Hollywood stars. It’s no longer about global and symbolic capitalism. That ended with the implosion of the World Trade Center twin towers. It’s a clash between Trumpism and the world—almost as if it’s Trump himself against everyone else. “I don’t care about the rest of the world. My goal is to make the American people happy.” Or at least (less than) half of them.

What are Trump’s cultural values? They are self-destructive. He’s a caricature of himself, sacrificing all Western values. He has ridiculed and eliminated all of America’s “soft power” in the world, leaving military might as his only recourse. Trump’s only tactic is that of a mafia boss—accept my terms or face destruction. This doesn’t work with the Iranian regime since they hold different values that Trump doesn’t understand. Trump, inherently aggressive, attacks everyone, seeking no allies or partnerships. The Shia tradition is a moral project or political theology involving sacred resistance, sacrifice, and martyrdom.

It is not a question of only opposing the social media platforms as they are. A fundamental redesign of social media platforms is possible. More people are getting their news from social media than from the mainstream media. You can get more accurate and in-depth news from podcasts, talking heads, and alternative news programs. Some have more discussion and debate than anything on TV. Taking that into account, one can say that the platforms have some positive aspects. But only a major redesign would make them helpful to democracy.

There is reason to be optimistic if we reimagine and proactively redesign social media, transforming it into a vital platform for sharing experiences and information—potentially the most important system for democracy. The accessible technological space can be shifted from a toxic environment to a healthy one.

The design of algorithms and the Big Data they depend on to generate predictive patterns must undergo significant changes. More emphasis should be placed on how the system can identify anti-democratic content. Fact-based, educational, and intellectually enriching video clips should be given greater visibility and recognition. Prioritizing high-quality content that offers value or social importance should outweigh the focus on “likes” and views.

Redesigning social media involves shifting ethical considerations from their usual position on the metaphorical tree’s regulatory branch to the core structure of its base. Both the system and application levels of network platforms face the same challenge in integrating moral principles.

In the disastrous contemporary situation, all that philosophy can offer is the hope of an “event” (Martin Heidegger, Baudrillard). In my work, I have called this “event” Technological Anarchism, Dialogical Artificial Intelligence, and Creative Coding.